TO THE EDITOR.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 530, 8 June 1880, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR.

[Correspondents are invited to discuss matters of public interest with fairness and brevity; this journal being .an impartial medium of discussion and advocacy for all affairs relating to the County of Patea.] HARBOR BOARD CORRESPONDENCE. Sir, —Mr Gibson, after making a great noise about a “ mare’s nest” in. the shape of a telegram, has, in your last issue, got into a state of quandary, slashing here, misstating there, attempting to put everybody in a fog, utterly ignoring the possession by the public of judgment and common sense. Mr Gibson wants the public to think him the Simon-Pure of the Harbor Board, What are the facts ? _ Why, in every instance, when any question for the public good in connection with the harbor was brought forward, has not private interest been kept too much in view by him? Take, for instance, the wharf question. According to Mr Gibson’s “certified copy," the chairman brings a resolution forward to have increased wharf accommodation on the town side of the river. Mr Gibson, who thought at that time that a boiling-down wharf was of equal importance, seconded an amendment to have a wharf for the Boilingdown Company included in the resolution. Tho, offending parties (according to Mr Gibson), Messrs Sherwood, Milroy, and Adams, objected to Harbor Board money being spent in that way. Mr Gibson and the B.D. party carried the amendment to have the Boiling-down Company’s wharf included in the recommendation for increased wharf accommodation for Patea. Mr Gibson (taking advantage of a clerical error in the “certified copy”) attempts to palm off on the public that he was favorable to wharf extension. What are the facts? Why; that he was only favorable conditionally on the Board granting the Boiling-down Company a wharf. Whether this is or is not favoring private interests I will leave the public to judge.—l am, &c.,

R, A. Adams. Mr G. F. Sherwood requests us to state that he intends replying to Mr Gibson’s letter in our next issue.— Ed. ' —♦ • OPENING BUSH ROADS. Sir, —In your issue of the sth instant, you treat the large run holders, as you call them, to an article on the grievances of the small settlers. One not acquainted with the facts would think the latter were badly treated. Should you think it worth 3 r our while to study the expenditure of the Patea West Road Board, for the last seven years, you will discover that the bush roads have absorbed about-, two-thirds of the whole rates collected.

You say the Government helped the large holders. Would you be good enough to explain how they did it ? They certainly did not favor them when they sold the land, for everyone wanting land with road frontage had to pay proportionally high prices in the first instance ; and if you look through the valuation list, you will notice that open land still keeps up the prestige it had, by the way the valuators put it on—the bush settlers hardly feeling the increased taxation. You make a mistake in asserting that large holders object to assist the bush settlers. They have assisted them, and are still willing to assist, but have a decided objection to allow the minority to impose an excessive rate to enhance the value of bush land. Don’t you think the difficulty could be got over by the bush settlers showing a little self-reliance in themselves ? They could put a special rate, or subsidise the Road Board Hates, to meet their most urgent requirements, which 1 think would be only fair and equitable under the circumstances. In conclusion, I admit that the settlers oh the open land ha\e better roads, but they have paid and are still paying pretty dear for the luxury.—l am, &c. • SELF-RELIANT. Manutahi, 7th.